How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhagwan Dass?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhagwan Dass come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 153A, Section 54B.

CIT v. Bhagwan Dass

272 ITR 367High Court2005#3719 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhagwan Dass authority for?

An assessment order is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if it is passed without applying the Assessing Officer's mind to the relevant material or without conducting proper inquiries.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhagwan Das · 272 ITR 367 · section 263 · revision u/s 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · prejudicial to interest of revenue · assessment order erroneous

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 153A Section 54B Section 10AA Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 malabar industrial prejudicial to interest of revenue section 263(1)lack of enquiry section 91 assessment order erroneous section 80hhc deduction u/s 80ia non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhagwan Dass

AQUA TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan &For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 801A(4)

…hat non-application of mind to relevant material or an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous. 10.3 Further, Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367, held that non-application of mind by the A.O. was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Similar views were given by Hon'ble Jabalpur ITAT in the case of Pratop Footwear Vs ACIT (2003) SOT 638. 11. In the present case, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 31.03.2023 Is an order passed by the A.O. and therefore, the aforesaid…

DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING FREIGHT SHARED SERVICES (INDIA) LLP ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PCIT)-41, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

…ce on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal v. CIT [88 ITR 0323] and Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [67 ITR 0084] and also on Gee Vee Enterprises V Additional Commissioner of Income –tax(1975),99 ITR 375(Delhi), CIT v Bhagwan Das(2005) 272 ITR 367 and also on Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs DCIT(2019) 111 taxmann.com 353 etc. P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2020-21 M/S DHL Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai 5.1 Accordingly, he was of the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because the assessment was made witho…

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…w then such an\nassessment order could not be cancelled u/s 263 unless it was shown that\nthe view was not tenable either in law or on facts.\n6. The Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad\nHigh Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is\na case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application\nof mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of\nChennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a\nsimilar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of\nassessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are…

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

…ct, 1961. 08. The finding that the assessment order under consideration in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [(2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of 5 mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed…

INFINITY CARS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT03 CENTRAL MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

…discussed in great details and disallowed in the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati),CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367, Pratap Footwear Vs ACIT [2003] SOT 638 etc. It is stated that in the present case, assessment order passed u/s 153 of the Act is an order passed by the A.O. and therefore, the aforesaid issues, which had not been considered by him in the said reassessment order, could be brought to life in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act. Relianc…

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of revenue. 7. My finding that the assessment order under consideration in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas[(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T.Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on t…

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…view then such an assessment order could not be cancelled u/s 263 unless it was shown that the view was not tenable either in law or on facts. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are dist…

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 139Section 263Section 90

…Act, 1961. 7. My finding that the assessment order under consideration in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)) and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on t…

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 139Section 263Section 90

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

…t. Ltd. 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-application of mind by the assessing authority on a particular issue, renders the assessment order susceptible to revision. 3. CIT v Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (AIL) (HC), the Hon'ble High Court has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Pratap Footwear ACIT(2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. CIT v. Jawahar…

DEE ARE TEXFAB PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 743/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.743/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. The Pcit 149, New Cloth Market बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 O/S. Raipur Gate Raipur V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecd 5136 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) …. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pr.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27/03/20223 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…al precedents before PCIT: a. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). b. Smt.Juthika Kar vs. ITO in ITA No.1128/Kol/2009 dated 16.05.2012. c. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB). d. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All.)(HC). Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 6 e. Hero Briggs & Stratton Auto Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 127 (Delhi) (Trib.). f. Punjab Wool Syndicate v. ITO [2012] 17 ITR 439 (Chandigarh) (Trib.). g. Vijay Kumar Megotia v. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Pat.)(Trib.). 2.7. However, Ld.Pr.CIT was not satisfied with the…

BHAGWATI ABHILASHA CONVENTURE ,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…ditional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975), 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), 3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) 4. Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT (2021)124 taxmann.com 435 5. ATC Telecom Tower (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 97 6. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367. 7. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 353 8. CIT vs. Sunil Goyal (2009) 176 Taxman 184 (Uttaranchal H.C.) 9. Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) 8. We have gone through the case laws relied upon by both the parties and facts of the matter. It is observed that there ar…

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [CIT. Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.(2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay High Court)] 4.2. Non-application of mind is a ground for interference under Section 263 in the case of CIT v. ShriBhagwan Das, (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All) the Division Bench opined that exercise of power under Section 263 was proper when there was no discussion regarding the question as to whether the amount of income shown by the assessee which was claimed to be exempted had actually been earned by him and whether the entire amount of income from agriculture and Poultry Farming was exempted…

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

SHRI RAJESH SHARMA ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 109/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Sharma Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ampps4972A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…015-16 2.Malabar Industrial Co. ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Hon’ble Suprme Court has held that non-application of mind by the assessing authority on a particular issue, renders the assessment order susceptible to revision. 3.CIT vs. Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All) (HC) the Hon’ble High Court has held that non-application of mind by the assessing officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4.Pratap Footwear v. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur (Trib.) the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.CIT v. Jawahar…

KALYANRAO VASANTRAO KALE HUF,PHANDHARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…rises Vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT Vs. South India shipping Corpn. Ltd. 1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad) CIT Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das (2004) 191 CTR 531 : (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All). 7. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. We find that in the assessment order, the ld. A.O has not brought out specific facts after due verification regarding the extent of agricultural income and the agricultural expenses incurred by the assessee. The ld. A.O has simply accepted all the submissions…

VIKRAM RAM PHADKE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 105/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:105/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 2016

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…v. ACIT [2003] SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) have held that ……. “Non application of mind by the AO at the time of assessment — An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” In the case of CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (AlI.)(HC), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that — “Non application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 11. From the facts of the case, I could find that the twin conditions are cumulatively satisfied in this case. 12. Further, Explanation 2 to Section 263 was inserted by Finance Act 2015…

SHOBHA RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI,YAWAL vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 176/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The A.O The Assessee Had Filed Copies Of 7/12 Extracts, Bank Account Details & Pages Of Diary, Where The Assessee Had Noted The Details Of Transactions Regarding Agricultural Income.

For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena (through physical)

Section 263

…en the income has been under- assessed, loss has been over-assessed, income has been assessed at a lower rate, excess deduction/allowances and reliefs have been allowed to the assessee. The Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwandas (2004) 272 ITR 367, has held that non-application of mind by the A.O is also prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Similarly, the order of the A.O shall be deemed to be erroneous if such order is passed without making inquiry or verification which should have been made. The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the scheme, the order has not…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2